Will we survive religion?

[Mirdath]

Let’s come back your former post…

I disagree. Saying that the Crusades were not a personal thing like that is kind of like saying the US were wrong for taking it personal when Iran invaded their embasy, took hostages, and threatened maintain this captivity if their demands were not met…

The First Crusade occurred when the Byzantine empire and the Seljuq empire went head-to-head over territory. Then ‘retake the Holy Land’ became the excuse to help the Byzantines, and by the Fourth Crusade they only made it as far as Constantinople (and promptly sacked it). It was a war, not an ‘international incident’. You might be able to reasonably compare them if the Iranian hostage crisis had been an actual invasion.

Are you even aware of how the Muslims conquered by the sword prior to the Christian Crusades even beginning?

Yes, and I’m also aware of how the Christians conquered by the sword just as much starting before the 600s. And how the Christians conquered by the cutlass and musket in the New World. And how the Jews conquered Caanan by the sword well before Christ even came on the scene. And how, right this very moment, both Muslims and Jews are trying it again in Israel/Palestine.

So, in the face of this fierce persecution by the sword, how exactly is my analogy flawed?

Are we allowed to defend our Christian brethren or not?

continued…

‘Thou shalt not kill’; ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’; ‘If you are struck, turn the other cheek’. I’m going with no. I’m quite sure you can try to twist all of those however you like – after all, it’s a tried and true artform – but I don’t think it’ll be in line with the teachings of the Christ. Those are all pretty unequivocal statements, even if you pull the first one out by saying the Old Covenant doesn’t apply anymore (which I’ve done on these very forums, and it hasn’t been well received).

Self-defense or defense of your family you might be able to make a case for, but playing at being superheroes and reducing entire populations to nothing? How is that morally excusable, let alone just?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued

…continued

Mirdath:

Once again, I didn’t say choosing martyrdom vs fighting is a question of relativism (it’s the first example I’ve seen in the entire thread of someone recognizing shades of grey though).

But you are saying, in rather sweeping terms, that the Crusades were entirely immoral, are you not?

I’m not talking about shades of grey. I’m talking about an entire full-color spectrum of morality-- with choices that are so absolutely moral and instrinsically immoral that they extend well into the invisible spectrum and cannot be understood as such without faith.

Mirdath:

Personally I’d say fighting back is morally neutral.

Is this an example of absolute truth or relative truth?

Mirdath:

But since we’re going with the Crusades, quite a few weren’t exactly defensive wars unless you count ‘defending’ some place they weren’t present at in the first place. So, are offensive wars morally justifiable or not? Whatever your answer, as an absolutist you must consider it permanently, unchangeably true. Good luck with that.

But you’re insisting on this false dichotomy without any recourse to external factors-- and it’s a lot more complex than you’re presenting.

It is permanently, unchangeably true that saving lives is good if we overcome evil with good. It is also permanently, unchangeably true that defending oneself from oppression is considered good if we overcome evil with good as well.

It’s the intention, action, and final results by which one attempts to bring about these permanently, unchangeably true things which determines how permanently, unchangeably true these things actually are.

For example, we must not do evil to bring about good. We must overcome evil with good. This is how God acts-- his intentions, actions, and final results are always good. In order for something to be considered good, the intention must be good, the action must be good, and the final result must be good.

In other words, the intention must be wholesome and without selfishness. If others react in a manner other than what the person actually intended, then the original person’s intentions are still wholesome and without selfishness-- it’s only that the reactions of others have perverted the original intentions of the person in question.

Likewise, the action must be permissible in proportion to that which the action is acted against. If others react in a manner which is not fair in regards to the persons’ actions, then the original person’s actions are still permissible in proportion to that which the action is acted against-- it’s only that the actions of others have distorted the original actions of the person in question.

And the final result must be achieved in accordance with what was orignally intended. If others prevent the final result which the original person intended and acted out for, then the final results of the person’s intentions and actions are still in accordance with what was orignally intended-- it’s only that the actions of others have prevented the final result of the original person in question.

See how it works?

In other words, if any of these three things are not good, then the goodness of the action in question is not considered permanently, unchangeably true. But it’s not that these things become ‘not good’ because others turned them into something evil. These things are still good in and of themselves regardless of the actions of others preventing this goodness from coming about.

 

[BobCatholic]

You mean ‘secular society’ like the Church of England?

The CofE has been so influenced by secular society it is turning more secular.

There probably wouldn’t be any Puritans; there would probably be similar splinter groups.

Because all Christians would be dead by this time. That’s why.

 

[BobCatholic]

And, up there with fanatics, they are the people we should be most worried about with regard to the question of religion’s detriment to society. They aren’t religious, but they use religion.

That’s the thing: Evil people will hide behind ANYTHING, religion, noble causes, WHATEVER, so they have more freedom to do their evil. When they do evil, it is not the noble cause or religion to blame, but the EVIL PEOPLE.

But you seem to blame religion instead of the evil people hiding behind religion…

 

[Mirdath]

But you are saying, in rather sweeping terms, that the Crusades were entirely immoral, are you not?

I’m not talking about shades of grey. I’m talking about an entire full-color spectrum of morality-- with choices that are so absolutely moral and instrinsically immoral that they extend well into the invisible spectrum and cannot be understood as such without faith.

Care to give me an example of something I in my faithlessness cannot say is good or evil?

Is this an example of absolute truth or relative truth?

Given that I wrote ‘personally’ I’d have to say it’s relative. I don’t claim to be absolutely correct, I just try as best I can (and I’ve yet to be convinced of a better way).

It is permanently, unchangeably true that saving lives is good if we overcome evil with good. It is also permanently, unchangeably true that defending oneself from oppression is considered good if we overcome evil with good as well.

By your standards

Also, define ‘evil’ and ‘good’. Do you mean ‘does not/does believe the way I do’ ? And if so, is offensive war against those now defined as ‘evil’ morally justifiable? Calling the Crusades inherently, completely good is quite a stretch at best.

It’s the intention, action, and final results by which one attempts to bring about these permanently, unchangeably true things which determines how permanently, unchangeably true these things actually are.

So whether something is good or not depends on the situation and background? Hello relativism.

For example, we must not do evil to bring about good. We must overcome evil with good. This is how God acts-- his intentions, actions, and final results are always good. In order for something to be considered good, the intention must be good, the action must be good, and the final result must be good.

In other words, the intention must be wholesome and without selfishness. If others react in a manner other than what the person actually intended, then the original person’s intentions are still wholesome and without selfishness-- it’s only that the reactions of others have perverted the original intentions of the person in question.

The intentions are still wholesome and without selfishness; the action suffers no such constraint, before you can even talk about the reactions of others.

Likewise, the action must be permissible in proportion to that which the action is acted against. If others react in a manner which is not fair in regards to the persons’ actions, then the original person’s actions are still permissible in proportion to that which the action is acted against-- it’s only that the actions of others have distorted the original actions of the person in question.

Action, not reaction. Let’s ignore the spirit of retaliation here, no ‘acting against’. If people don’t like what you are doing, do the ends justify your means anyway? You’ve given me a pretty clear and explicit ‘yes’. Look back up at that ‘intention’ bit; saying others’ takes on your action are just distorted means you can ignore the morality of intent completely. Does everyone else get this privilege, or do you have to Believe to earn it? If so, you’ve just made the best possible argument that the answer to Valke’s question is an emphatic negative.

And the final result must be achieved in accordance with what was orignally intended. If others prevent the final result which the original person intended and acted out for, then the final results of the person’s intentions and actions are still in accordance with what was orignally intended-- it’s only that the actions of others have prevented the final result of the original person in question.

If intent and execution are perfect, the actions of others must be considered separately from the primary action. You can start something perfectly well, and then everyone else comes in and it all goes straight down the tubes (ex. Deism – God starts everything and leaves, then humanity becomes responsible for all it’s done).

In other words, if any of these three things are not good, then the goodness of the action in question is not considered permanently, unchangeably true. But it’s not that these things become ‘not good’ because others turned them into something evil. These things are still good in and of themselves regardless of the actions of others preventing this goodness from coming about.

Which would be why I completely discount ‘final result’ from determining the morality of an action. Intent and execution are the only factors the actor has control over – and if you can provide even one example of just those two going over perfectly in a war I’d be interested to hear it.

 

[Mirdath]

The CofE has been so influenced by secular society it is turning more secular.

By this you mean ‘they don’t agree with what I hold to be the One True Way’, correct? They’re just as much a church as any other; they have beliefs, rites, sacraments, and a moral structure. That’s a religion, like it or not, agree with them or not.

Because all Christians would be dead by this time. That’s why.

And how is this worse than having all Muslims dead? If the Crusades were so essential to the survival of Western civilization and the Catholic religion, why didn’t anyone finish the job? And what makes you think the Muslims would do the same? There are always extremists on all sides, especially where religion is concerned. However, when it comes down to realpolitik, people make deals and compromise. Note that not all Russians were not rabid communists; that not all Germans were goosestepping Nazis; and that not all Jews are aggressive Zionists.

That’s the thing: Evil people will hide behind ANYTHING, religion, noble causes, WHATEVER, so they have more freedom to do their evil. When they do evil, it is not the noble cause or religion to blame, but the EVIL PEOPLE.

But you seem to blame religion instead of the evil people hiding behind religion…

I do not. I blame both the zealot and the manipulator; as I’ve said time and time again, the people who are neither I have no quarrel with. That you can’t tell the difference between a zealot and the religion he preaches speaks volumes.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

The First Crusade occurred when the Byzantine empire and the Seljuq empire went head-to-head over territory.

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the stated goal of capturing the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslims.

What started as an appeal to the French knightly class quickly turned into a wholesale migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe. Both knights and peasants from many nations of Western Europe, with little central leadership, travelled over land and by sea towards Jerusalem and captured the city in July 1099, establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem and other Crusader states.

Although these gains lasted for fewer than two hundred years, the First Crusade was a major turning point in the expansion of Western power, and was the only crusade to capture Jerusalem.

Mirdath:

Then ‘retake the Holy Land’ became the excuse to help the Byzantines, and by the Fourth Crusade they only made it as far as Constantinople (and promptly sacked it).

Yes. And Innocent III Condemned the Sacking of Constantinople too…

Mirdath:

It was a war, not an ‘international incident’. You might be able to reasonably compare them if the Iranian hostage crisis had been an actual invasion.

War is an international incident Mirdath.

What are you not getting here?

Muslims had moved into this area and severely persecuted many non-Muslims by the sword to convert them. Many people died by their sword too.

Mirdath:

Yes, and I’m also aware of how the Christians conquered by the sword just as much starting before the 600s. And how the Christians conquered by the cutlass and musket in the New World. And how the Jews conquered Caanan by the sword well before Christ even came on the scene. And how, right this very moment, both Muslims and Jews are trying it again in Israel/Palestine.

Yes. And we’re also aware of how atheists butchered many lives under the name of communism in Russia and enlightenment in France too. We’re also aware of how many people have butchered the innocents in the wombs in the name of freedom of choice too.

Do you think that these atheists in Russia and France speak for all atheists?

Do you think that these people of all faiths who have abortions, both religious and secular, speak for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

‘Thou shalt not kill’;

Correction: Thou shalt not murder.

‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’;

What if the ‘self’ desires to murder ‘itself’?

Is this considered a valid means of loving thyself?

‘If you are struck, turn the other cheek’.

Yes. And where does it say anything about allowing someone to murder you?

Being struck on the cheek is an offense and afront in the ancient world. Taking a sword to someone, or pulverizing them with stones, or stretching someone limb from limb between four horses is something else entirely.

The passage talks about forgiving others when they do bad things to do.

Another passage of Scripture sums it up this way…

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?

Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others?

Do not even pagans do that?

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Mirdath:

I’m going with no.

I’m going with the idea that you’re conflating many different concepts and not rightly dividing the Scripture within their context.

Mirdath:

I’m quite sure you can try to twist all of those however you like – after all, it’s a tried and true artform – but I don’t think it’ll be in line with the teachings of the Christ.

Well…your religion is listed as ‘etc.’-- so I’m not exactly sure what this implies. But I am always amused when non-Christians try to explain to Christians what we actually believe.

Are you a Christian?

If so, then what denomination do you belong to?

If not, then how exactly do you know what is and what is not in line with the teachings of the Christ?

Besides that, why would I need to twist them? You’ve already done an excellent job in this regard.

Mirdath:

Those are all pretty unequivocal statements, even if you pull the first one out by saying the Old Covenant doesn’t apply anymore (which I’ve done on these very forums, and it hasn’t been well received).

Um…actually I do think the Covenant of Moses still applies (if this is what you mean by Old Covenant). Christ, however, is fulfilling this Covenent for us…

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

For example, Christ fulfills the Jewish identity for us in the circumsion. Since we are baptized into Christ and adopted into the Jewish family, we are circumcised by virtue of our adoption into God’s family by Christ’s circumcision. In other words, he was circumcised for us and fulfills this aspect of the Jewish identity for us too.

Mirdath:

Self-defense or defense of your family you might be able to make a case for, but playing at being superheroes and reducing entire populations to nothing? How is that morally excusable, let alone just?

You’re still conflating a lot of things here.

Like I asked before, do you think that the atheists in the Russian communist revolution and the enlightened of France’s bloody revolution speak for all atheists throughout history?

 

[Mirdath]

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the stated goal of capturing the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslims.

Keep reading.
wikipedia:

In March 1095, Alexius I sent envoys to the Council of Piacenza to ask Urban for aid against the Turks.

wikipedia:

At the Council of Clermont, assembled in the heart of France in November 1095, Urban gave an impassioned sermon to a large audience of French nobles and clergy. He summoned the audience to wrest control of Jerusalem from the hands of the Muslims. France, he said, was overcrowded and the land of Canaan was overflowing with milk and honey. He spoke of the problems of noble violence and the solution was to turn swords to God’s own service: “Let robbers become knights”.[1] He spoke of rewards both on earth and in heaven, where remission of sins was offered to any who might die in the undertaking. The crowd was stirred to frenzied enthusiasm with cries of Deus vult! (“God wills it!”).

It was a territorial war. ‘Sacred’ was secondary.

Yes. And Innocent III Condemned the Sacking of Constantinople too…

Good for him! A little too late to keep people from having murdered, raped, and pillaged in the name of religion, though.

War is an international incident Mirdath.

A ‘hostage crisis’ is not war.

What are you not getting here?

I think I’m doing fine, what are you not getting?

I disagree with you. Give me a well-reasoned case that doesn’t involve me having to make that leap of faith and maybe something approaching common ground can be reached.

Muslims had moved into this area and severely persecuted many non-Muslims by the sword to convert them. Many people died by their sword too.

Muslims had been there for centuries! Arabs are Semites too, Ismail was Abram’s son by Hagar; this is all in your own Bible. I equate the Crusades with the Moorish invasion of Spain.

Yes. And we’re also aware of how atheists butchered many lives under the name of communism in Russia and enlightenment in France too. We’re also aware of how many people have butchered the innocents in the wombs in the name of freedom of choice too.

Do you think that these atheists in Russia and France speak for all atheists?

Do you think that these people of all faiths who have abortions, both religious and secular, speak for the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?

Nope, and I have never said I did.

 

[Mirdath]

Correction: Thou shalt not murder.

What if the ‘self’ desires to murder ‘itself’?

Is this considered a valid means of loving thyself?

Remember I mentioned other people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Yeah. If you want to kill yourself, I’ve got nothing against that.

Yes. And where does it say anything about allowing someone to murder you?

Being struck on the cheek is an offense and afront in the ancient world. Taking a sword to someone, or pulverizing them with stones, or stretching someone limb from limb between four horses is something else entirely.

The passage talks about forgiving others when they do bad things to do.

Another passage of Scripture sums it up this way…

Then why are martyrs saints?

Well…your religion is listed as ‘etc.’-- so I’m not exactly sure what this implies. But I am always amused when non-Christians try to explain to Christians what we actually believe.

Are you a Christian?

If so, then what denomination do you belong to?

If not, then how exactly do you know what is and what is not in line with the teachings of the Christ?

Besides that, why would I need to twist them? You’ve already done an excellent job in this regard.

Why does my particular creed matter? The fact remains that I’m hardly ignorant of the Catholic Church’s history and teachings, and I’d like to see you prove otherwise.

Ah, and I’m the devil quoting scripture too! I’ve twisted nothing, merely stated some relevant precepts of the Christian faith. It’s you who are claiming that offensive war is justifiable when your own savior speaks of doing unto others as you would be done by, that the standards by which we should judge others is dependent on situation yet absolute (a direct contradiction, mind you; and I didn’t say intent, don’t take it that way). Can you back any of this up without resorting to fallacy and leaps of illogic?

Um…actually I do think the Covenant of Moses still applies (if this is what you mean by Old Covenant). Christ, however, is fulfilling this Covenent for us…

I believe it’s ‘Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant’. Do you like bacon? Look in Acts, where God lowers a net full of unclean food to Peter. Or all the torturous discussion of whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised to be accepted into the Church. The Old Covenant is obsolete; Jesus himself said ‘Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself; the whole of the law comes from this’. Were the covenant with Moses still in force, Catholicism would be reduced to being only as valid as Judaism in your eyes – in fact, only a comment on Judaism – and with that your entire argumentative structure in which Catholicism is the only road to salvation collapses completely.

For example, Christ fulfills the Jewish identity for us in the circumsion. Since we are baptized into Christ and adopted into the Jewish family, we are circumcised by virtue of our adoption into God’s family by Christ’s circumcision. In other words, he was circumcised for us and fulfills this aspect of the Jewish identity for us too.

Circumcision nowadays is pretty much only done for medical reasons and aesthetics. See above where I mentioned the discussions over whether or not Gentiles really had to get chopped before they could be let in as catechumens. The fathers of the Church eventually decided it wasn’t a necessary step.

Like I asked before, do you think that the atheists in the Russian communist revolution and the enlightened of France’s bloody revolution speak for all atheists throughout history?

How many times do I have to say no?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Care to give me an example of something I in my faithlessness cannot say is good or evil?

What is your opinion of abortion?

Do you chose the adoption of your soul in Christ-- or the abortion of your soul in hell?

What is your opinion of euthanasia?

Do you chose to die to the body so that you may live in Christ’s ecclessia-- or the murdering of the body in the name of euthanasia?

Is it a faithful catechism or a faithless cataclysm?

Mirdath:

Given that I wrote ‘personally’ I’d have to say it’s relative. I don’t claim to be absolutely correct, I just try as best I can (and I’ve yet to be convinced of a better way).

Fair enough. That’s all we can do, right?

Mirdath:

By your standards

What other standards can we go by Mirdath?

Mirdath:

Also, define ‘evil’ and ‘good’. Do you mean ‘does not/does believe the way I do’ ? And if so, is offensive war against those now defined as ‘evil’ morally justifiable? Calling the Crusades inherently, completely good is quite a stretch at best.

No. I said the intentions, actions, and final results of the Crusades were good to the extent that they accomplished their goal. But they are not good to the extent that others pervert, distort and prevent these intentions, actions, and final results.

Mirdath:

So whether something is good or not depends on the situation and background? Hello relativism.

No. It’s not relativism in the way you’re defining it.

For example, Jesus himself said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

He also said…

Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.

And again…

"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both.

Now which of them will love him more?"

Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.”

“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

This isn’t relative. It’s absolutely proportional to the amount that God have given. You are measured to the degree which God reveals and enables to you. No more. No less. That’s an absolute standard that God himself has imposed on you. And you can’t escape this judgement no matter how hard you might try.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Remember I mentioned other people’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Yeah. If you want to kill yourself, I’ve got nothing against that.

Doesn’t sound like a right to life to me.

Mirdath:

Then why are martyrs saints?

Why do you think they’re saints Mirdath?

They were willing to die for their faith as God revealed his will through them. They went above and beyond tha call of duty in this regard.

Mirdath:

Why does my particular creed matter?

Because it does, that’s why.

Why do you think it doesn’t?

Mirdath:

The fact remains that I’m hardly ignorant of the Catholic Church’s history and teachings, and I’d like to see you prove otherwise.

Apparently, based on some of the claims you’ve made, I can honeslty say you truly are ignorant of the history and teachings of the Catholic faith-- especially if you’re going to conflate the Crusades the way you do.

Mirdath:

Ah, and I’m the devil quoting scripture too!

Um…when did I say you were the devil?

So much for reasonable dialogue.

Besides that, you’re the one who was claiming that I was going to twist the Scriptures around.

If making the claim that someone twisting the Scriptures autotmatically infers a reference to a diabolical scheme, then what are you claiming against me?

You didn’t even give me the chance to explain my position before you made this judgement-- so apparently you already know what I’m going to say. And when I don’t actually say what you’re expecting me to say, you’ve already got a claim that I don’t understand my own Catholic theology too.

You kind of remind me of another poster that I’ve debated with before, not Muslim but infatuated with defending Islam.

Speaking of which, I haven’t seen him around for a while.

Are you pro_universal?

Probably not, but I thought I’d check anyway just to be safe.

Mirdath:

I’ve twisted nothing, merely stated some irrelevant precepts of the Christian faith.

I corrected your typo for you.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mirdath:

It’s you who are claiming that offensive war is justifiable when your own savior speaks of doing unto others as you would be done by, that the standards by which we should judge others is dependent on situation yet absolute (a direct contradiction, mind you; and I didn’t say intent, don’t take it that way).

So do you think Jesus would expect us to sit back and not defend our family if it were under attack?

Do you think Jesus would expect us to sit back and not defend our a perfect stranger if he were under attack?

Mirdath:

Can you back any of this up without resorting to fallacy and leaps of illogic?

I’m guessing that you don’t actually believe in divine revelation-- or that God could actually speak through someone to you?

But see, I can’t say this for sure since you’re not really willing to share what faith you belong too, etc., etc., etc…

Mirdath:

I believe it’s ‘Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant’. Do you like bacon?

I love bacon-- especially when it’s stuffed in roasted chicken .

Mirdath:

Look in Acts, where God lowers a net full of unclean food to Peter. Or all the torturous discussion of whether or not Gentiles had to be circumcised to be accepted into the Church. The Old Covenant is obsolete;

Well…there are a lot of Jews around today who would disagree with you.

Mirdath:

Jesus himself said ‘Love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself; the whole of the law comes from this’.

True. So do Jews love people, including their neighbor?

Seems that way to me. I can think of many Hindus, Muslims, atheists, pagans and may others who do this too.

Mirdath:

Were the covenant with Moses still in force, Catholicism would be reduced to being only as valid as Judaism in your eyes – in fact, only a comment on Judaism – and with that your entire argumentative structure in which Catholicism is the only road to salvation collapses completely.

See…I can now say say that you do not actually understand Catholcism as well as you think you do.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

674 The glorious Messiah’s coming is suspended at every moment of history until his recognition by “all Israel”, for “a hardening has come upon part of Israel” in their “unbelief” toward Jesus.568 St. Peter says to the Jews of Jerusalem after Pentecost: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old."569 St. Paul echoes him: "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"570 The “full inclusion” of the Jews in the Messiah’s salvation, in the wake of “the full number of the Gentiles”,571 will enable the People of God to achieve “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”, in which “God may be all in all”.572

Catholicism is believed by Catholics to be the fulfillment of the Messianic expectations of Judaism-- but this doesn’t render Judaism obsolete. It only takes that which Judaism no longer requires, becuase Christ has fulfilled them for us, and points toward Christ as the primal sacrament inheritted from Judaism as she waits patiently for all Isarael to be saved just as the Scriptures promised.

I suppose, in a sense, one could say that the Jews are semi-akin to the husband that the bride waits in expectancy for-- not much different from the Church awaiting Christ’s second coming. The two seem to be closely linked in my opinion.

Anyway, the rest of your post doesn’t really address much, so I’ll just let it slide. It seems that you’re more interested in arguing for the sake of arguing than actually listening to anything that we are sharing with you.

I’m not really interested in that kind of conversation. Thanks anyway though.

Enjoy the forums.

 

[nby]

I appreciate your comments and view them as validating mine.

Yes but this is the reaction you’re always after is it not Valke2; provoking people on these forums so that you use their replies to your advantage. I find every word that you type here provocative. Even your interests section is provocative; you have filled it with “South Park”. I don’t know about other Catholics on this forum but personally I truly hate that disgusting show. Anyway, it is not the point. My point is, is stating South Park as one of your interests on a Catholic forum not the same as, let’s say, stating that the Mohammad cartoons are one of your interests on a Moslem forum? My point also has nothing to do with the Moslem reaction to such behavior because I certainly am not comparing their reactions to ours. Rather, it has got to do with the disrespect behind your behavior. I am merely judging you by your own standards. So my question to you is this: if the Mohammad cartoons were one of your interests then would you still put it down as one of your interests on a Moslem forum? Before you answer this question, remind yourself of what you have been saying in regards to accepting other people’s truth and how truth is not absolute. It seems you have accepted everyone’s truth except ours.

 

[Valke2]

Yes but this is the reaction you’re always after is it not Valke2; provoking people on these forums so that you use their replies to your advantage. I find every word that you type here provocative. Even your interests section is provocative; you have filled it with “South Park”. I don’t know about other Catholics on this forum but personally I truly hate that disgusting show. Anyway, it is not the point. My point is, is stating South Park as one of your interests on a Catholic forum not the same as, let’s say, stating that the Mohammad cartoons are one of your interests on a Moslem forum? My point also has nothing to do with the Moslem reaction to such behavior because I certainly am not comparing their reactions to ours. Rather, it has got to do with the disrespect behind your behavior. I am merely judging you by your own standards. So my question to you is this: if the Mohammad cartoons were one of your interests then would you still put it down as one of your interests on a Moslem forum? Before you answer this question, remind yourself of what you have been saying in regards to accepting other people’s truth and how truth is not absolute. It seems you have accepted everyone’s truth except ours.

How is saying I like Southpark disrespecting you or anyone else? It’s a funny cartoon, imo. I have no problem with poking fun at religion – your’s or mine. I have no probelm with you hating Southpark. I’d be hard pressed to think of a single episode that doesn’t make at least one joke at the expense of Judaism. What this has to do with this thread is beyond me.
It seems you just had the need to attack my motives, rather than my position.

 

[Mirdath]

What is your opinion of abortion?

Do you chose the adoption of your soul in Christ-- or the abortion of your soul in hell?

What is your opinion of euthanasia?

Do you chose to die to the body so that you may live in Christ’s ecclessia-- or the murdering of the body in the name of euthanasia?

Is it a faithful catechism or a faithless cataclysm?

I do not like abortion; I consider it a necessary evil. I support euthanasia as a moral way for someone in incredible pain to escape the kind of life people were never meant to have to deal with.

What other standards can we go by Mirdath?

Not yours, perhaps? Maybe even the actual standards of the Catholic Church which you’re misrepresenting here?

No. I said the intentions, actions, and final results of the Crusades were good to the extent that they accomplished their goal. But they are not good to the extent that others pervert, distort and prevent these intentions, actions, and final results.

The Crusades directly involved murder, theft, rape, lying and breaking of treaties. Those were the actions: not the final results, and not the reactions of others. Defend then the Crusaders in their immoral actions as well as their (questionably) ‘moral’.

No. It’s not relativism in the way you’re defining it.

For example, Jesus himself said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

He also said…

And again…

This isn’t relative. It’s absolutely proportional to the amount that God have given. You are measured to the degree which God reveals and enables to you. No more. No less. That’s an absolute standard that God himself has imposed on you. And you can’t escape this judgement no matter how hard you might try.

Know what? Your quotes have done nothing except prove my point about violence. Forgiveness does not make sin relative; it’s something every Christian is mandated to do, no matter the sin. And it shows how Jesus himself accepted violence done to him without retaliation, even to the point of death. Aren’t Christians supposed to emulate Jesus, or are you conveniently skipping the parts that’d be hard for you?

 

[Mirdath]

Doesn’t sound like a right to life to me.

I like Bill Hicks’ take on it: “You’re so pro-life – don’t link arms and block medical clinics – link arms and block cemeteries!”

Euthanasia is perfectly compatible with my moral standards. I’ve never claimed they’re the same as yours, or that they’re in keeping with the teachings of the modern Catholic Church. Unless I get convinced somehow (not here) that it’s immoral I guess you’re just going to have to deal with it.

Why do you think they’re saints Mirdath?

They were willing to die for their faith as God revealed his will through them. They went above and beyond tha call of duty in this regard.

Martyrs are saints for giving over their lives to the violent because of their faith, no? And, much like Jesus himself, this is an example you are encouraged to emulate. Yet martyrs are not canonized for killing for their faith, but for dying for it. As with my example from your quotes above, this example should lead to the conclusion that it is supremely Moral to avoid retaliating for offenses done you, and of course also moral not to be the offender in the first place.

Because it does, that’s why.

Why do you think it doesn’t?

In the context of the original question of the thread, it doesn’t matter – and neither does yours.

Apparently, based on some of the claims you’ve made, I can honeslty say you truly are ignorant of the history and teachings of the Catholic faith-- especially if you’re going to conflate the Crusades the way you do.

What, just because I can chapter-and-verse you in history as well as theology? Prove it for me.

Um…when did I say you were the devil?

So much for reasonable dialogue.

Besides that, you’re the one who was claiming that I was going to twist the Scriptures around.

If making the claim that someone twisting the Scriptures autotmatically infers a reference to a diabolical scheme, then what are you claiming against me?

You didn’t even give me the chance to explain my position before you made this judgement-- so apparently you already know what I’m going to say. And when I don’t actually say what you’re expecting me to say, you’ve already got a claim that I don’t understand my own Catholic theology too.

Poetic license on the devil bit – it was all me. I’m so aaaaangsty. This is a serious discussion, the Internet is serious business, and seriously, lighten up.

You’ve had plenty of chances to explain your position; you’ve simply failed to do so without resorting to logical fallacies, out-of-context quotes, ranting, and a general failure to really explain anything.

You kind of remind me of another poster that I’ve debated with before, not Muslim but infatuated with defending Islam.

Speaking of which, I haven’t seen him around for a while.

Are you pro_universal?

Probably not, but I thought I’d check anyway just to be safe.

I’m not pro, though I’ve seen his posts around and he seems like a pretty cool and reasonable guy.

I corrected your typo for you.

Since when are the fundamental tenets of Jesus the Christ’s moral teachings irrelevant to a Catholic?

 

[Mirdath]

So do you think Jesus would expect us to sit back and not defend our family if it were under attack?

Do you think Jesus would expect us to sit back and not defend our a perfect stranger if he were under attack?

Given the example of the martyrs, he’d probably be okay with your family – though I’d guess he wouldn’t exactly be thrilled with more violence being done.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Not yours, perhaps? Maybe even the actual standards of the Catholic Church which you’re misrepresenting here?

So, at last we have it. You apparently understand Catholcism better than the Catholics do, right?

Are you going to accuse me of being heterodox too?

If so, then I’m going to report your posts. You can take your **** elsewhere Mirdath. It’s not going to fly too well here at a Catholic forum, even if we are in the section for non-catholic religions.

I suggest you think about that.

Mirdath:

Know what? Your quotes have done nothing except prove my point about violence. Forgiveness does not make sin relative; it’s something every Christian is mandated to do, no matter the sin.

Sin is sin regardless of whether people realize they are sinning or not. This is an absolute standard.

What is jubject to debate is the extent to which people will be held accountable for the sins they commit. There are conditions outside Catholicism considered to be valid conditions of invincible ignorance for example

Is this a heterordox position to take within Catholicism?

Oh…and think twice before you actually answer that question too.

ok?

Mirdath:

And it shows how Jesus himself accepted violence done to him without retaliation, even to the point of death.

No. It doesn’t.

Jesus himself said…
Matthew 26:53-54:

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

If Jesus were permitted to at this time, he could have wiped his attackers off the face of the earth. But because the Scriptures had to be fulfilled, he was willingly allowing himself to be sacrificed for our sakes.

At his second coming, however, the Rider on the White Horse isn’t going to be so docile. He will fulfill the Scriptures which you are conveniently forgetting.
Revelation 19:11-21:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.

Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and mighty men, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, small and great.”

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image.

The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

So much for your pacifist depiction of Christ.

Mirdath:

Aren’t Christians supposed to emulate Jesus, or are you conveniently skipping the parts that’d be hard for you?

I hope you realize that Christianity, like God, is being patient with those who do not know God.

Do you want me to proceed to kill with the sword all who blaspheme the name of God?

Or would you rather us just be patient with the blasphemers as we allow them to lead our children astray and away from the True God of Catholicism?

How are the Crusades any different from the Book of the Apocalypse’s depictions of Christ redeeming the world by his sword?

This is nonsense Mirdath.

You can make as many claims as you want. You’re not really impressing me with your knowledge. I don’t think you’ve even been able to dissociate the previous passages you conflated together either-- despite my attempts to help you understand this better.

But you don’t really know what you’re talking about in regards to Catholicism, do you?

Yep. I’ll be back tonight after my wife and child feel better. They’ve both got a bad case of the flu now. It’s been persistent, coming and going. I myself had it on and off for about 2 weeks before it went away.

I’m feeling quite a bit better now though.

 

[BobCatholic]

I do not. I blame both the zealot and the manipulator; as I’ve said time and time again, the people who are neither I have no quarrel with. That you can’t tell the difference between a zealot and the religion he preaches speaks volumes.

Being a zealot is not the problem, if one is zealous and doing good. Mother Theresa was a zealot, but I seriously doubt you’re railing against her, are you?

However, you blast zealots en-masse instead of judging based on actions - evil. Instead of blasting evil en masse, you blast the good things that evil people use.